Heller

Guild Mortgage Co. v. Heller

Good Law
193 Cal. App. 3d 1505·1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 1994·239 Cal. Rptr. 59
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 5, 1987B022174California9,217 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Compton, J.

*1508 Opinion

Plaintiff Guild Mortgage Company appeals from a judgment dismissing its complaint for breach of contract, fraud, and conspiracy after the trial court sustained without leave to amend the demurrer of defendants Jack and Kathleen Heller. We reverse.

On appeal from a judgment entered after the sustaining of a general demurrer, this court must assume the truth of all properly pleaded allegations of the complaint. (Loehr v. Ventura County Community College Dist. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 1071, 1076-1077 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 576 ].) Moreover, the allegations must be liberally construed with a view to attaining substantial justice among the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., § 452; King v. Central Bank (1977) 18 Cal.3d 840, 843 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 771 , 558 P.2d 857 ].) Our primary task is to determine whether the facts alleged provide the basis for a cause of action against defendants under any theory. (Katona v. County of Los Angeles (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 53, 56 [218 Cal.Rptr 19]; Surina v. Lucey (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 539, 541 [ 214 Cal.Rptr. 509 ].)

For purposes of this appeal, a brief recital of the facts is all that is required. In September 1983, defendants agreed to purchase a…

Concurring Opinion

Gates, J.

I wholeheartedly concur in my colleagues’ decision to reverse the judgment upon the pleadings entered in this particular action. I write here only to caution against too broad an interpretation being given to our holding.

Accepting as true, as we must, the allegations of appellant’s complaint, respondents, acting in the role of “dummy” purchasers, joined with others in a conspiracy to perpetrate a deliberate fraud which could conceivably have caused injury even to a lender who had exercised reasonable care in the conduct of its business affairs.

This state’s antideficiency statutes were never designed to allow such' persons to escape the consequences stemming from their part in this joint tort while their cohorts yet remained liable. Nevertheless, I trust this fact will not be mistakenly construed by our various lending institutions and their counsel, or by our trial courts themselves, as indicating we believe the careful limitations imposed upon fraud actions by our Legislature (see Fin. Code, §§ 779, 7459, 7460 and 15102), may be ignored and open season declared on more traditional defaulting borrowers.

Our present extremely limited record, of course, reveals virtually none…

Opinion

Plaintiff Guild Mortgage Company appeals from a judgment dismissing its complaint for breach of contract, fraud, and conspiracy after the trial court sustained without leave to amend the demurrer of defendants Jack and Kathleen Heller. We reverse.

(1) On appeal from a judgment entered after the sustaining of a general demurrer, this court must assume the truth of all properly pleaded allegations of the complaint. ( Loehr v. Ventura County Community College Dist. (1983) 147 Cal. App.3d 1071, 1076-1077 [ 195 Cal. Rptr. 576 ].) Moreover, the allegations must be liberally construed with a view to attaining substantial justice among the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., § 452; King v. Central Bank (1977) 18 Cal.3d 840, 843 [ 135 Cal. Rptr. 771 , 558 P.2d 857 ].) Our primary task is to determine whether the facts alleged provide the basis for a cause of action against defendants under any theory. ( Katona v. County of Los Angeles (1985) 172 Cal. App.3d 53, 56 [218 Cal.Rptr 19]; Surina v. Lucey (1985) 168 Cal. App.3d 539, 541 [ 214 Cal. Rptr. 509 ].)

For purposes of this appeal, a brief recital of the facts is all that is required. In September 1983, defendants agreed to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.